Comments

15 debates and Newt gets the only standing O, among several very strong moments. (He got another lesser standing O from about 20% of the crowd on another answer).

This type of debate performance is what created the initial Gingrich surge back before Iowa, negated by a confluence of Romney & Paul attack ads Newt couldn’t counter due to lack of funds, but also because the attacks coincided with a lengthy break in debates, where Gingrich makes his money, so to speak.

Well, now Gingrich can counter attack ads and we’re back to debates, his strong suit. I’m curious as to how much of a bump in polling this translates into.

Ron Paul…. yikes, lol.

Santorum did well for himself as well.

Perry, alas, is done. He did well, but not nearly well enough, overshadowed by Gingrich’s particularly strong showing.

Romney did not do well at all. His best replies were of the standard boilerplate type, generic and platitudinal, mere debate prep recitals.

Obama: I love Socialism and inferior substandard State Socialized Medicine with a forced mandate, forced onto the people, whether they like it or not..

Romney: So do I ..

Obama: I want to raise taxes when I want, as much as I want, where I want, to whomever I want.

Romney: So do I ..

Obama: Then I want to borrow, spend, and redistribute as much money as I like, regardless of how much revenue America takes in from the private sector.. and I want to build the US govt. bigger than China.. and I could care less about the US National debt, or the Military, or Capitalism, or the US Constitution.

“Much of this language should sound quite familiar, for it is taken directly from the recently enacted National Defense Authorization Act of 2012. There was great concern surrounding the authority given the President by this law to imprison American citizens without trial or charge if he should consider them enemies who present a danger to the United States and its people. And, just as the President is granted that authority by the NDAA, should the Enemy Expatriation Act pass both the House and Senate, he will ALSO have the authority to revoke their citizenship.”

“the deletion of a PERIOD and substitution of the word OR in the Enemy Expatriation Act literally means it is no longer necessary that citizens be found GUILTY of crimes against the US by “court martial or a court of competent jurisdiction” before their citizenship may be revoked!! It would, upon passage of the EEA into law, only be necessary that the federal government BELIEVE someone has “engaged in or supported hostilities against the United States.” Just as it is with the NDAA which Obama signed on New Years Eve, the accused has no right to trial, no right to have evidence of his guilt be produced, no right to an attorney.”

Don’t get bent out of shape over the NDAA or the Enemy Expatriation Act. Holding a purported enemy combatant during hostilities is one thing. That is reasonably easily justified as removing hostile assets from the battlefield.

Stripping citizenship is quite another, and stripping citizenship without trial and a finding of treason would not survive a 5th Amendment Due Process challenge.

This is complete nonsense. US citizenship, once properly obtained, cannot be lost involuntarily, no matter what a person does. Even a conviction for treason does not give Congress the power to revoke someone’s citizenship. No president, no congressional act, and no court can do so. The only ways a person can lose US citizenship is by voluntarily renouncing it, or by the discovery that he was never a citizen in the first place.

Newt is exactly right.. Learning when you are young, good work habits and work ethics, besides the value of earning your own money, from your own efforts, teaches responsibility and builds character, of which young people need to grow up with, to turn into productive members of society, and not end up as a high school drop out, or on welfare and foodstamps, or even in prison from criminal activity, like gang violence and or drug use, etc.. of which is what liberals want and advocate.. and why, because liberals want minorities in America, to be so accustomed to, and addicted to govt. handouts, aka, entitlements, like welfare and foodstamps, so they always count on them to be politically reliable votes, is, and should be seen by minorities, as an absolute outrage and insult, as an assault on their character as a people, and their individual abilities to be self-reliant, self-sufficient, and independent.

Self-reliance and Independence empowers people, and if there is one thing liberals do not want, is for people, especially minority people, to be self-reliant, independent, and empowered, and equally with thought..

This would inevitably guide people, of their own accord, away from the liberal democratic party, thus they will lose their political power base, thus their power, thus their money…

This why they will do anything they can to stop the people, specifically the minority folks, from becoming self-reliant and independent from govt. This is their whole premise and point of being and existence, and thus explains their behavior, aka, political motives, of all of their actions and words, of constant attacks against Reagan Conservative Republicans, like Newt. As well as their behind the scenes support for Romney.

Like it or not, that is the Truth, and the sooner the Free Independent people in the minority communities realize that self-reliance, and along with it, self-esteem, confidence, pride and independence, is better than govt hand outs, the sooner they will be free of govt. dependency, and liberals.

Newt is clearly up against the liberal Republican Party establishment apparatus, which includes Fox News, but one in which Newt can aptly and ably handle. What else is new, as Reagan had to deal with the same crony Republican Party RINO apparatus and people.

The problem is always the same thing, as the political agenda of Obama left, or the RINO right, always tries to get in the way of the Truth.

That’s what they have in common against Newt, and the Tea Party Reagan conservatives, which is why the Republican Party apparatus, can easily justify colluding with the far left, so they can ensure the reins of power and control, stay in liberal hands, of either party.

This is why Newt resonates with real Reagan Conservatives, aka, the People, and not the liberal Republican Party RINO establishment of Boehner, McConnell, Cantor, and Romney.

–and I remember when Newt first started saying 2 + 2 = 4, and our “intelligentsia” made fun of it, WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT MEANS, OF COURSE, or the genesis of why this is a political slogan, which is the struggles of Poland and others to throw off the chains of communist slavery from the Soviet Union.

TeaPartyPatriot4ever, A STANDING OVATION FOR THIS COMMENT. Absolutely!

— and hurray Newt! Newt, you were AWESOME in tonight’s debate. Clear, consistent, telling the truth.

Also — I am so happy because I now have 17 of newt’s speeches up at a new website, NEWT GINGRICH FOR PRESIDENT, for your listening and viewing pleasure and edification if you are interested. “2012: VICTORY OR DEATH” is an AWESOME speech and a great place to start. There are 17 speeches. Soon I will put up more.

I am so happy to offer this list of links to Newt’s speeches. The speeches are what convinced me to support Newt.

This is because IMO the speeches are a brilliant overview of how we, the American people, can restore out country to the Constitution and amazing prosperity and be a help to the whole world. I hope people find these speeches informative and the links helpful!

It’s not so much that Newt is a good debater, but he teaches in a way that brings people along with him. You enjoy learning as well as being led to a conclusion. That’s a rare quality in a president (and actually in teachers as well).

Reagan did it. FDR did it. It’s a gift to be able to teach and not be boring or preachy. Newt has that gift. Perry has a little of it, which showed up a bit tonight.

Newt also mentioned another place with a great retirement plan; Galveston County, Texas.

But Newt did not own up to the fact that the Chilean plan was modeled after what three counties in Texas did before the Congress decided that the plans were too damn good, paid off to well and put a stop to it by law. Congress could not revoke those plans, just prevent other counties from doing them in the future.

But for Newt to say that Texas did something right, would have reflected well on Rick Perry in the minds of people. Now, we can’t have that, can we?

It is the same reason that Herman Cain would never give Texans the credit for those plans, although Cain talked a lot about Chile. He, too, was running against Rick Perry and to give any credit to Perry’s state would reflect well on Perry. And it dishonors what Texans did that, unlike Romneycare, could be used all across this nation.

Rick Perry should have looked over at Newt and said “Are you saying that the nation should follow what we Texans put into place, Newt?” I don’t appreciate Newt not giving us credit for what is such a good plan that it was copied by another nation. That’s just not right. If one state does something good, other states should be allowed to follow, and Newt needs to man up and give credit where it is due, not to some foreign country.

And I’m sorry, while I think what Newt did to Juan Williams was totally justified, being able to back talk a reporter doesn’t mean he will be a good president.

Newt’s debate performance was great. And he gets the Dale Carnegie award. But he had his chance. He had the chance to do something about our borders. We had illegals pouring in while he was Speaker, and he did nothing. He had his chance to stay in Congress and continue working toward a balanced budget and he was driven out by the conservative leg of Congress due to his ethics violations. He had his chance to actually turn around all the liberalism and liberal laws that have been foisted on this nation since FDR, and he did not do it.

Now is someone else turn, someone who has actually governed 25 million people, helped his state create jobs, lower the deficit, keep taxes low, end the regulatory strangle hold on job creators. And you people are too blind to see it. You want someone who can back talk a stupid reporter.

All I can say is this: you deserve the kind of government you are going to get, and when you don’t have a job in your state, don’t come begging in mine.

Yup. People are so infatuated with debate performances. Well, do you want a good debater, or a good chief executive?

“Let’s elect Newt because he’s a great debater” sounds a lot like “Let’s elect Obama because he’s a great speaker.”

Facepalm. Silly me, sticking to the guy who has the best record of results bar none on that stage. And the fact is, Perry has done very well in the debates since having had some time to recover from his back surgery.

Yes, I’m sure the legislatively weak governor of the state of Texas was personally responsible for a retirement plan that was put in place in 3 out of 254 counties in Texas. Why can’t the world recognize that everything good that happens in Texas is because of Rick Perry? They’re all blind, that’s why! And anyone who doesn’t thank Rick Perry personally for any good idea or statistic that comes from Texas is not to be trusted.

Zeke, perhaps you can point to the part of my post that said Rick Perry was personally responsible for the plans by Galveston County and two others? For the reading challenged, I said it would reflect well on Texas and Perry would look good because that is his state.

And you need to understand one thing about us Texans; we are in odd spot. Governor Perry, unlike Romney, has been a good governor and has put his conservative values into place. If he wins the office of President, we lose because we get stuck with either David Dewhurst or Joe Strauss. If he loses, YOU LOSE.

Records do matter. And all the things that the conservative base seems to want now, Gingrich was in a position to deliever years ago. Border security? Where was Newt back then? Not one of the men on that stage has the actual record of governing that is better than Governor Perrys. Not one.

Where is all the dirt on Perry? There is none. You want a man who has been married FAITHFULLY to his high school sweetheart, with NO signs of scandal for over 30 years? Rick. You want a man who has worked with his Congress to actually balance the budget of the 13th largest GDP in the world, not once, but many times? Rick. You want regulations decreased to allow business to flourish and create jobs? Rick? You want border security? RICK. Military service? Rick.

Yeah, Newt, Romney, Santorum, Paul, they can all say they will do those things. Perry has actually done them. But I am sure you, like many people who comment on this blog, are more impressed with being able to tell off a liberal pundit than you are with actual records of walking the walk, not just talking the talk.

If Rick Perry loses, and it looks like he will, I will not be disappointed in him. I will be disappointed in a nation that is too stupid to judge a candidate on their actual record, not what they are telling us now.

To credit Perry with 3 of 254 counties is to damn Perry for failing in 251 of 254 counties. The sword cuts both ways. It’s silly anyway.

Perry did well enough last night, just not enough to change anything for him. He also had yet another “gone tharn” moment and, geez, you just feel sorry for the guy because he is incapable of hiding it when he draws mental blanks while speaking. As the GOP candidate facing a hostile press 24/7, a press well aware of this deficit, Perry would turn into a gaffe machine. It’s too bad, because he’s otherwise a fine candidate.

You also seem to miss the point. The point is that states should be allowed to try things that will work/fail. Galveston County had a winning plan. Massachusetts has a failing plan. Other states will see what works and what doesn’t and avoid the mistakes and pitfalls making their governments work better for their citizens.

And every candidate has their “gaffe” time. But just ignore that Romney said his time at Bain was no different than what Obama tried to do with GM/Chrysler or that he just said two days ago that the economy is getting better (tell that to all the unemployed, Mitt).

Personally, I think you should write in Dale Carnegie. Never mind that he’s long gone. But he was one hellofa public speaker and that seems to be what you want. Bet you are also a Christie fan.

Your understandable disappointment at the fact that it’s all over for Texas governor Rick Perry is clouding your vision, making you read things into others’ post that simply aren’t there, and say derogatory things about others that aren’t in evidence. Look outside your own circle of political allies for a whipping boy, eh? You’ve had to point out what Perry should have said, but did not. In previous posts you’ve pointed out what Perry ought to have done on this or that, but did not. As for a target for your anger, we call that a clue. Perry’s failure is Perry’s fault. Take a nap or something.

Rather than score the performance merely as a debate between candidates, I chose to view each of them on how their performance would translate if they were speaking as the President – trying to garner support for some action or convince the American people of some necessity.

On that basis I’d rank Gingrich the winner, with Perry a somewhat close second. Santorum was a bit of a wash, although I agree with much of where he stands I didn’t see him coming across either forcefully or credibly. Ron Paul was a roller coaster of decent highs and loony lows.

Romney was slick and greasy. Particularly on the super PAC issue where he clearly wanted to have his cake and eat it too – saying others needed to condemn their PACs actions while he’d “look into” his. On every other substantive issue his answers equally canned, too safe, and clearly unconvincing (an indication to me that he’s not even convinced of what he was saying.)

Last night’s debate was just further evidence of how poorly Romney would fare against the Obama/MSM onslaught. They’d turn him into the second coming of Joe Isuzu.

Okay, Newts “gift question” from Juan williams aside (and yes it was a great smack-down Newt), my vote for funniest quip of the night goes to Perry when he said that perhaps what Brett Baier was looking for was a “Gong” to stop Ron Paul rambling. I cracked up at that one.

“BAIER: Governor Perry, you sounded like you wanted to get in when Congressman Paul was talking at the beginning of this round on foreign policy.
PERRY: Well, I was just saying that I thought maybe that the noise that you were looking for was a gong.”

Sometimes I like Juan Williams, as much as one can like a liberal, because he does seem to try to understand the conservative viewpoint, but other times I have to wonder. I mean, there he is, the lone liberal on a FOX News debate panel, at a GOP debate, with a few thousand conservatives/Republicans sitting right behind him, he asks a racebait-laden question, and appeared to be surprised at the audience’s negative response. Hello? Juan?

Juan Williams is just trying to save his own face, after being humiliated with the truth by Newt.. Juan Williams is a defender of old guard liberal Democratic establishment of welfare and foodstamp entitlements and govt dependency, for minorities, which only makes them dependent, not entitled, which is why he wanted to, on National Prime Time Television, embarrass Newt with that question. But as Newt so eloquently stated in his response, Juan and the liberal establishment and agenda, are wrong, and stated why they were wrong.

This is why Newt was right.. which the audience obviously new was right, as well..

Learning when you are young, good work habits and work ethics, besides the value of earning your own money, from your own efforts, teaches responsibility and builds character, of which young people need to grow up with, to turn into productive members of society, and not end up as a high school drop out, or on welfare and foodstamps, or even in prison from criminal activity, like gang violence and or drug use, etc.. of which is what liberals want and advocate.. and why, because liberals want minorities in America, to be so accustomed to, and addicted to govt. handouts, aka, entitlements, like welfare and foodstamps, so they always count on them to be politically reliable votes, is, and should be seen by minorities, as an absolute outrage and insult, as an assault on their character as a people, and their individual abilities to be self-reliant, self-sufficient, and independent.

Self-reliance and Independence empowers people, and if there is one thing liberals do not want, is for people, especially minority people, to be self-reliant, independent, and empowered, and equally with thought..

This would inevitably guide people, of their own accord, away from the liberal democratic party, thus they will lose their political power base, thus their power, thus their money…

This why they will do anything they can to stop the people, specifically the minority folks, from becoming self-reliant and independent from govt. This is their whole premise and point of being and existence, and thus explains their behavior, aka, political motives, of all of their actions and words, of constant attacks against Reagan Conservative Republicans, like Newt.

[…] is becoming ever harder to avoid, judging by other stories we’ve encountered in the news. During Monday night’s presidential debate in South Carolina the moderator Juan Williams charged former House Speaker New Gingrich with racism […]